If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I've been following this thread for quite awhile. Since I'm a retired teacher I have at the very least a basic understanding of Pablov and Skinner. That being said, I know in ALL of my retriever training in the last 12 years, there hasn't been one instance of thinking about either......which explains my reluctance to post.

However, this last "interlude" with indirect pressure has proven to be more personal. I use it for effect in certain situations (and not very often) and my dogs have learned how to respond correctly to it. It has proven effective. They learned how to respond correctly through the use of consistent, fair reps with teaching as the main focus. A responsive dog doesn't just happen.

Basically, the dog must be in a situation where they are not doing anything wrong.......like sitting. Supposedly, the immediate reactions of the dog are 1) "I am sitting so that which you just sent me can't be for not sitting" (not doing anything wrong and you have my attention), 2) "I now can't remember what I wanted to do" (forgot what his mistaken mindset was) and asks 3) "What is it that you want me to do?" (re-focused and more responsive).

I have always looked at indirect pressure as a refocusing, attention "getter". I suppose the key here is that for me the scientific lingo of conditioning makes more sense when it is verbalized in a real time, simple English.

This communication issue reminds me of the street wise student I once had in chemistry. One day he raised his hand and "axed", "Hey Bro, can't you just say all this scientific "stuff" in street lingo so's I can get it?" Now I know how he felt.

I suppose it would be better to understand why it works in terms of the "conditioning" discussed in this thread, but I am at a loss on how significant that is if I read the dog, have a solid, consistent way of communicating and seem to be accomplishing what I need for the level of dogs I work with.

Tell me why I need to know......for reasons other than to understand all the posts in this thread or the generic response "because it will improve your training".

One extra bit of info, I have trained with FT groups often and been to several retriever seminars held by established pros.....none of this "stuff" (Pablov, Skinner) was ever discussed.

However, this last "interlude" with indirect pressure has proven to be more personal. I use it for effect in certain situations (and not very often) and my dogs have learned how to respond correctly to it. It has proven effective. They learned how to respond correctly through the use of consistent, fair reps with teaching as the main focus. A responsive dog doesn't just happen.

Basically, the dog must be in a situation where they are not doing anything wrong.......like sitting. Supposedly, the immediate reactions of the dog are 1) "I am sitting so that which you just sent me can't be for not sitting" (not doing anything wrong and you have my attention), 2) "I now can't remember what I wanted to do" (forgot what his mistaken mindset was) and asks 3) "What is it that you want me to do?" (re-focused and more responsive).

I have always looked at indirect pressure as a refocusing, attention "getter". I suppose the key here is that for me the scientific lingo of conditioning makes more sense when it is verbalized in a real time, simple English.

This communication issue reminds me of the street wise student I once had in chemistry. One day he raised his hand and "axed", "Hey Bro, can't you just say all this scientific "stuff" in street lingo so's I can get it?" Now I know how he felt.

Do you give a cold burn or nick with out a whistle sit ...? Steve S

"Your dog learns as much by doing his work right,by your praise and encouragement, as he does by your displeasure and correction." DLWalters

I just can't make the connection that is punishes everything else....I guess I'm a lot like that street wise kid....I need better examples ...Steve S

Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?

Because it associates the aversive, with the location.

Aversive stimulus, always punishes something.

By conditioning the dog to go, stop, and come in response to that aversive, we assure that applying it as reinforcement, doesn't punish going, stopping, or coming.
But, it still punishes SOMETHING, when we apply an aversive to reinforce a behavior that we have conditioned to that aversive stimulus.

That's why it works as an indirect pressure correction for what the dog was doing wrong at the time that it was applied. And it's also why the dog can "blame" it on something that we didn't want the dog to blame it on.

I know you're not talking to me Pete, but I think CC is instinctual in all animals as a built in means of survival. We simply leverage this instinctual ability to make associations and anticipate events by applying the principals of OC.

I think all of our dog's conditioned responses are built using this this instinct, whether we as trainers realize it or not

Darrin
There is a lot to it I guess,,,no absolutes in dog training,,,drives influence how dogs learn and assimalate. Timing/motivation and consistency tie in,, ,,but like Jim says its something most don't think about when training. Fun stuff to think about and talk about.

You and Copdoc are Rockin though,,I enjoy trying to understand it better,,,its a good change of pace.
Pete

No. Dog is whistle sat first...then burn or nick at a higher level than a regular corrrection (what level depends on the dog). The usual protocal in training is attrition first and then indirect pressure (again depends on the dog).

For me, this is more of a "finesse" thing than a "hammer" (again depends on the dog). It is not a "cookie cutter" process.

It should be noted teaching the correct response to indirect pressure does not start with an e-collar.

No. Dog is whistle sat first...then burn or nick at a higher level than a regular corrrection (what level depends on the dog). The usual protocal in training is attrition first and then indirect pressure (again depends on the dog).

For me, this is more of a "finesse" thing than a "hammer" (again depends on the dog). It is not a "cookie cutter" process.

It should be noted teaching the correct response to indirect pressure does not start with an e-collar.

I agree...no cold burns...All collar work needs to be finessed ...Steve S

"Your dog learns as much by doing his work right,by your praise and encouragement, as he does by your displeasure and correction." DLWalters

Why does a dog flare the place that it was forced on back, or stopped with a whistle/nick?

Because it associates the aversive, with the location.

Aversive stimulus, always punishes something.

By conditioning the dog to go, stop, and come in response to that aversive, we assure that applying it as reinforcement, doesn't punish going, stopping, or coming.
But, it still punishes SOMETHING, when we apply an aversive to reinforce a behavior that we have conditioned to that aversive stimulus.

That's why it works as an indirect pressure correction for what the dog was doing wrong at the time that it was applied. And it's also why the dog can "blame" it on something that we didn't want the dog to blame it on.

I have only seen these occur when the stimulation is too high or repeated numerous times in the same location..I don't develop hot spots...Was a popular way to limit the possible routes a dog could choose from years ago....Too much pressure in volume or reps will cause all sorts of dog reactions...miscommunication...
Let say you are right in the blame game ...What can we do limit the fall out of the dogs blaming it on something else..?Steve S

"Your dog learns as much by doing his work right,by your praise and encouragement, as he does by your displeasure and correction." DLWalters

Darrin
There is a lot to it I guess,,,no absolutes in dog training,,,drives influence how dogs learn and assimalate. Timing/motivation and consistency tie in,, ,,but like Jim says its something most don't think about when training. Fun stuff to think about and talk about.

You and Copdoc are Rockin though,,I enjoy trying to understand it better,,,its a good change of pace.
Pete

Thanks Pete, It is an interesting discussion for sure. Jim mentioned having never thought about these concepts, and I don't disagree. I spent a few years training without a complete understanding myself. There's a whole lot more to consider as you cycle through a large number of years and a large number of dogs, for sure.

I decided to learn as I tried to become more proficient at problem solving in a variety of breeds. Supporting that was the need to adapt to various limitations placed on my training by a customer who may or may not approve of, or be physically able to execute a certain method. Having an understanding allows me to better educate my customers, which increases their ability to maintain training. It also helps me when I run into some odd problems we wouldn't necessarily have with a retriever we trained from a puppy.

Fact is, I'm just a babe in the woods in terms of experience, but I am trying hard to accelerate my learning curve through solid study of the basic concepts and handling as many dogs as possible. After a couple of hundred dogs, I feel like I am starting to know a little bit, but only a little bit about training. There are still so many things to learn, and I think there always will be.

This discussion is more about someone's ability to talk the talk than walk the walk, IMHO.